1st openly gay American Anglican (Episcopal) Bishop elected

[Yorick]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/index.html

Interesting considering the Roman Catholic Pope's recent declarations on homosexual marriages. Anglican (called Episcopal in America) ministers are of course allowed to marry. What will the new Bishop elect of New Hampshire do?

Will this split the American Anglican Church (2.3 million members) from the worldwide Anglican Church (73 million members).

Is the Anglican Church to be lauded for being openminded enough to elect a gay bishop - a move that may simply create a new schism - or are they to be demonised as being too 'Liberal' (American definition).

Does this change your mind about the Christian Church?

[ 08-06-2003, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Donut]

They is headed for a schism!!

[Sir Taliesin]

I don't know about that Donut. The conservative wing has threatened to split before over several other issues, but has always remained. I heard an interview with the ArchBishop of Canterbury two nights ago and he said that one thing that might happen is the splitting of the US or North America into two provinces of the Anglican Church (he said they were headed that way anyhow). One might be conservative and the other not so conservative.

One thing I might add as a Christian about this situation, is that it is in God's hands only to Judge Bishop Robinson, not our hands. While others may find him lacking, God may not.

[johnny]

originally posted by Yorick Does this change your mind about the Christian Church?

Perhaps it's a good thing that they losen up a bit. They might just as well accept the fact that they are here to stay.

[Larry_OHF]

During my mission in Mexico, I was speaking to a leader in the Catholic Church who gave me alot to think about. He told me that if the Catholic Church is the church that St. Peter set up after receiving the keys from Jesus...then anybody that does anything contrary to the word of the Pope is doing it wrong. He also expressed his thoughts on the idea that if the Catholic Church is wrong and not the church that was set up by St. Peter, then that would make the Mormon Church the right one, because of the position of the same system of Leadership and Priesthood, as the Mormons claim a restoration of that responsibility through Divinity and angelic visitation.

If I were a Catholic, and my American version church branched off to do something that the Pope had expressed his word against...I would leave the American break-off and find another church that was doing it the way the Pope had expressed. The way I see it, you cannot be Catholic and deny the Pope. Just like I cannot be called a Mormon and not believe the teachings of President Gordon B. Hinkley.

[ 08-06-2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I'm not sure how the Episcopal Church can resolve the inherent differences in the Biblical view of homosexuality and the act of confirming an openly gay Bishop. I agree that the Bishop's sexual preference is his own business, and I also agree that is God's place to judge his actions, but I don't agree with promoting him to a leadership role in the church. The Bible clearly speaks against homosexual acts, so I feel it is wrong to choose a leader living that lifestyle.

One of the questions on the survey gave the option of saying "Yes, as long as he presents an accurate version of the Bible's stance on homosexuality" (or words to that effect). But how could he honostly do that? If he does speak out against homosexuality, he will be called a hypocrite and will weaken the Anglican Church's overall position on the subject.

Before I get accused of being an intolerant, homophobic zealot...let me say that I would feel the same way if the Bishop were an admitted and unrepentant adulterer. It would be no different for the the Anglican church to promote an adulterer who planned to continue cheating on his wife to a position of authority. Both are acts of sexual immorality according to the Bible.

I also hold the same view on the Catholic bishops that are proven pedophiles. The should be completely removed from the positions of authority, not just moved to another parish.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: During my mission in Mexico, I was speaking to a leader in the Catholic Church who gave me alot to think about. He told me that if the Catholic Church is the church that St. Peter set up after receiving the keys from Jesus...then anybody that does anything contrary to the word of the Pope is doing it wrong. He also expressed his thoughts on the idea that if the Catholic Church is wrong and not the church that was set up by St. Peter, then that would make the Mormon Church the right one, because of the position of the same system of Leadership and Priesthood, as the Mormons claim a restoration of that responsibility through Divinity and angelic visitation. If I were a Catholic, and my American version church branched off to do something that the Pope had expressed his word against...I would leave the American break-off and find another church that was doing it the way the Pope had expressed. The way I see it, you cannot be Catholic and deny the Pope. Just like I cannot be called a Mormon and not believe the teachings of President Gordon B. Hinkley.

That's cool.

The Episcopal/Anglican Church has no connection to the Pope however. It is part of the "Church of England" founded when Henry XIII of England decided to ignore the Popes refusals to marry him to his second? wife. So the English Church broke away, experienced some reforms and spread into the English speaking world. It became the "Anglican Church" everywhere but America where is is called "Episcopal" and I believe Scotland, which calls it the "Church of Scotland"

Ironically in an age of seperation between Church and State, Queen Elizabeth of England is the nominal head of the Anglican Church, although in reality the national churches are independent and a deferencial respect is accorded the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the actual head of the Anglican Church in England.


My father was an Anglican minister, and I have issues with the Anglican Church and both it's heirachial structure and some of it's practices, but all in all it's a Church that trains it's ministers VERY well (in Aust, they must learn both Ancient Greek and Hebrew for example). It also has a reformed movement within it which is Pentecostal.

But it has nothing to do with the Pope.

I believe it is the worlds second largest Christian denomination after Catholicism.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I'm not sure how the Episcopal Church can resolve the inherent differences in the Biblical view of homosexuality and the act of confirming an openly gay Bishop. I agree that the Bishop's sexual preference is his own business, and I also agree that is God's place to judge his actions, but I don't agree with promoting him to a leadership role in the church. The Bible clearly speaks against homosexual acts, so I feel it is wrong to choose a leader living that lifestyle. One of the questions on the survey gave the option of saying "Yes, as long as he presents an accurate version of the Bible's stance on homosexuality" (or words to that effect). But how could he honostly do that? If he does speak out against homosexuality, he will be called a hypocrite and will weaken the Anglican Church's overall position on the subject. Before I get accused of being an intolerant, homophobic zealot...let me say that I would feel the same way if the Bishop were an admitted and unrepentant adulterer. It would be no different for the the Anglican church to promote an adulterer who planned to continue cheating on his wife to a position of authority. Both are acts of sexual immorality according to the Bible. I also hold the same view on the Catholic bishops that are proven pedophiles. The should be completely removed from the positions of authority, not just moved to another parish.

This is good reasoning.

I included the "yes with teaching" option, because it's possible that he could teach it as being a sin, yet something which is his version of Pauls "thorn in his side" as it were. Consequently taking a "follow Jesus, not me" approach.

I have no idea what his practices are. He may abstain, he may have a partner I have no idea. I don't know how he resolves the issue.

I have an abstaining yet open homosexual involved in leadership on my music team. I personally have no problems with him or his lifestyle whether he's practicing or not. HOWEVER. I think I would have problems if the Pastor I was UNDER was a practicing homosexual. It would affect my ability to trust his judgement on both biblical interpretation for starters.

But here's where it all get's really funky.

If I remarry, am I in the same position as a homosexual? I've either resolved living in a way the bible speaks against, or I'm living in a state of rebellion against the will of God. Am I expecting people under me to do what I cannot?

There are many churches that will not ordain divorced people, let alone remarried people.

YET... a former minister who had lost his parish because his wife left him, was of incredible help and healing to me when my wife and I initially split. His wisdom and counsel still ring in my ears years later. When I knew him he was in another church as a cousellor/pastor, not a head pastor. But the same church does allow remarried men to be senior pastors. Actually a couple of sundays ago a divorced and remarried man, a guest speaker was preaching. He was incredible. An incredible speaker full of the Holy Spirit. Very powerful.

All that said, I am not a preacher or pastor, but it's a conundrum. In restricting a homosexuals leadership potential I in effect restrict myself.... "judge not, lest you be judged".

The "yes with teaching" element is something I myself would do. I completely agree with the sanctity of marriage, and believe you shouldn't divorce, but of course acknowledge the reality of human existence and our flawed state. Marriage is an intended state, not a prison.

How far do we go in requiring moral fibre from our church leaders? On one hand we acknowledge that "all have sinned in the eyes of God" and that "all sins are equal" and that salvation is past present and future, yet on the other, place sexual sin, and visible sin above hidden sins, and sins of attitude and thought.

What of a covetous Bishop? A drunkard Bishop? We may never know.

Are we expecting church leaders to be "Jesus" when in reality they are simply a cog in a Jesus loving communitiy wheel like any other person.

Leaders ARE given a higher standard to follow in the Bible, but how far do we go in applying those standards to OTHERS rather than ourselves?

[Timber Loftis]

I'd say we know a bit about covetous or drunkard bishops and have for years. Even Chaucer was not the first to write about these people. What WERE pardoners, if not covetous?

I wonder exactly HOW high a standard we hold our religious leaders to. Hmmm... let's see, pedophile priests and the church REFUSES TO NAME THEM. Ha! High standards indeed. The very system they're offending protects them.

I'm fine with the first gay Episcopal minister. In considering my local Chicago news stations poll last night, I fell in with the 20% who votes they would attend a church with an openly-gay minister (IF I believed in God, which I do not), rather than the 73% who said they would not.

There's a neat book I saw on the shelves a couple of years ago either titled or sub-titled "Why the Catholic Church must Change or Perish" that addresses concerns like homosexuality and other modern issues going beyond the ability of the church's long-existent dogma to address. The church can stick with the same interpretations of the text and be as strict as it wants -- but if the congregation moves on, it will drift apart from the church.

And, Catholocism and some of its dogmatically-similar offshoots will suffer this worse than others, as so many obviously outdated ideas (i.e. every sperm is sacred, no birth control, population growth is good) are still lingering around the godhead.

[Chewbacca]

I've been following this in the news, last night it was FOX cable news. In interviews with several of the conservative commentators, Anglican spokesmen compared this current situation with the previous use of scripture to relegate women to second class status and how that all changed 27 years ago.

They also held the opinion that the Holy Spirit and community had more weight than scripture when deciding church policy and that scripture is widely open to interpretation.

It seems they beleive acting upon conscience is more important than acting out of arbritary interpretations of scripture and for that I salute them. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

This church as survived these changes of conscience before and I believe they can handle this one as well.